Аннотация: On the issue of the incident in India (in Uttarakhand) on February 7, 2021. A note.
On the issue of the incident in India (in Uttarakhand) on February 7, 2021. A note.
Starting February 7, 2021, day after day, we are reviewing publications about the incident in the Indian state of Uttarakhand. These are expert blogs, Indian English-language sources, CNN and other Western sources.
What attracts attention?
First, the attention (in publications, in materials) to a certain topics:
1) A causes of the disaster. It seems to be natural attention ... The main reason is climate change, then the options are a landslide, a breakthrough of a glacial lake, complex causes ...
However, a curious nuance, which may be invisible to an observer distant from the place of events, is slightly revealed in blogs.
No, no, it was not human activity (especially not the activity of a certain state power) that caused the disaster! Nevertheless, at least one historical example is given, with a slight hint of suspicion ...
It is good that the disaster is not the result of someone's malicious intent. We readily believe.
2) The stories (emotions) of those who were on the path of the catastrophic flow, but managed to escape.
3) Description of efforts to find and release people trapped (because of catastrophic flow) in mines (in tunnels).
4) The number of dead, the number of missing. The destroyed, crushed objects (of various types).
5) Reminders about alerts, warnings. (There have been some form of warnings. - Anyway - a warnings about the risks of global warming have become commonplace.)
6) These warning and caution reminders are indirectly counteracted by the remindings about high cost of purchasing electricity, which prompts the construction of power plants in mountainous conditions, despite the risks.
7) A help, support provided to victims of the catastrophic flow.
Secondly, while paying attention to certain topics, the information flow does not give a coherent picture of the disaster itself.
There are no answers to obvious questions:
1. What is the height of the wave (of the catastrophic flow)?
2. How long (in time) was the disaster? When approximately did the catastrophic flow begin and when did it approximately end?
3. What is the distance traveled by the catastrophic flow?
4. What was its speed?
5. What is the trajectory of the catastrophic flow?
Thirdly, maps and satellite images attract attention.
1) Basically, if there were, then there were contradictory maps without scales.
Unclear satellite imagery. Until the moment of the catastrophe ... After the moment of the catastrophe ... What do they mean? What do they illustrate? In general, they are beautiful ... Mountains photographed from space ...
2. Finally, a more or less consistent, understandable map appeared, although not ideal. (AP NEWS. Himalayan glacier disaster highlights climate change risks. By ANIRUDDHA GHOSAL. February 9, 2021) (Source [of the map]: Associated Press; Prof. Dan Shughar, American Geophysical Union). (https://apnews.com/article/climate-climate-change-courts-avalanches-india-7be7a76eea4d497b22609ff3d5194e69) (Victoria Milko in Jakarta, Indonesia, and Seth Borenstein in Kensington, Maryland, contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.).
The map shows the trajectory of the catastrophic flow (it's the red line). At the bottom of the map there is a segment (part of the line) with numbers and letters "20 mi".
We decided to treat these numbers and letters as the scale of the map. And we adopted this designation as a map scale of 20 geographical miles (1 geographical mile - 1855.3 m).
Then we took a ruler and measured on the screen (we have no other possibilities; not to measure at all?) the distance from the place of the beginning of the disaster to the extreme point indicated by the red line (the trajectory of the catastrophic flow). We converted result into kilometers.
It turned out about 200 km.
But 200 km - it's in a straight line.
But the red line is a broken line. That is, it turns out about 300 kilometers - is this the distance covered by the catastrophic flow?
If this is so, then it remains to recall that between the spontaneous dam on the Bureya River (in the Verkhnebureinsky District of the Khabarovsk Krai, Russia) and the Chinese territory there is a distance of about 300 km.
These are some of our impressions after more or less regular acquaintance with publications about the disaster in the Indian state of Uttarakhand (on February 7, 2021).
In addition, we have reason to assert that the most comprehensive description of a similar a catastrophic event and of a successful solution to the problem is the our work - БУРЕЙСКИЙ ДНЕВНИК BUREYA JOURNAL (ВЛАДИМИР ЗАЛЕССКИЙ БУРЕЙСКИЙ ДНЕВНИК BUREYA JOURNAL by VLADIMIR ZALESSKI [на русском и английском языках] [in Russian and in English languages)]. (http://zhurnal.lib.ru/editors/z/zalesskij_w_w/bureyajournal.shtml).
[MCMXСIX. Two years - after the solution of the Bureya problem. A historical essay. - 8 February 2021.].
February 12, 2021 04:21
Translation from Russian into English: February 12, 2021 19:58.
Владимир Владимирович Залесский 'К вопросу об инциденте в Индии (штат Уттаракханд) 7 февраля 2021. Заметка'.